Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

The new national sports networks, starting with the 2014 MLB season, also may also be able to televise games involving clubs that Fox's RSNs have rights contracts with it. For instance, an Angels-Detroit Tigers game slated for FS West and FS Detroit could air nationally as Fox holds the regional rights to both teams. Conversely, the deal would not apply to the Boston Red Sox (NESN) and Washington Nationals (MASN).

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

I don't think he's missing your point. You pay for channels you don't watch and implied that another model or provider was maybe more in line with your viewing habits. He's pointing out that the situation exists regardless of what it is that you actually want to watch - some one us always going to pay for something they don't want... Even on Netflix.

Similar to branding in Australia and New Zealand. One has to wonder if we will see international sport from the Fox owned Sky Sports and Fox Sports networks overseas. That will really make things interesting and worth it a 80 cents per channel.

Similar to branding in Australia and New Zealand. One has to wonder if we will see international sport from the Fox owned Sky Sports and Fox Sports networks overseas. That will really make things interesting and worth it a 80 cents per channel.

Probably ... Fuel had Rugby this morning.

If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

Originally Posted by tulanejosh I don't think he's missing your point. You pay for channels you don't watch and implied that another model or provider was maybe more in line with your viewing habits. He's pointing out that the situation exists regardless of what it is that you actually want to watch - some one us always going to pay for something they don't want... Even on Netflix.

The last time I checked, Netflix was not charging me $90+ a month for their programming. Netflix only charges me $8. And I actually liked their new show House of Cards!

The last time I checked, Netflix was not charging me $100+ a month for their programming. Netflix only charges me $8. And I actually liked their new show House of Cards!

Unlike the networks, Netflix doesn't have to fund the development of shows from the start. Not every new show is a success, even shows that don't make it past pilot still cost money since the actors, writers and crew still need to get paid for filming the rejected pilot.

Now if Netflix decides to start actively developing shows from the scratch like the networks do (complete with rejected pilots and failed shows that do get picked up but get cancelled after 2-3 episodes), instead of just picking up shows that were further along in the process like House of Cards, or already established shows with a known cult following like Arrested Development, there's no way that $8 a month subscription will fund that and the license fees for acquired movies and programming from other networks.

The last time I checked, Netflix was not charging me $90+ a month for their programming. Netflix only charges me $8. And I actually liked their new show House of Cards!

Right - so I think you are missing my point. Like i said, based on what you are now saying, it's not really about whether or not you are paying for content you don't want, it's about what you bill total is.

And you know, just putting this out there, Cable and Satellite were at one point cheaper as well. It's not like Netflix or (insert alt company here) is going to be immune from price hikes forever. So in your own words - good luck! But i gotta ask, what are you going to do when Netflix has to start charging market rate?

Fox might make the right moves to unseat ESPN, but not with Regis. No disrespect, but 90% of ESPN viewers wouldn't be able to identify him unless maybe Who Wants To Be a Millionaire returns to prime time without Meredith Viera.

Fox might want some more firepower to take on Entertainment & Sports Programming Network!

Did they learn from when they tried this in 1997 and failed. Guess Fox will keep trying until they get it right.

It's too bad DirecTV doesn't move ALL the sports channels into a sports tier like cable and reduce the package prices for those of us who never watch them (me).

I think that DIRECTV would be happy to do this if they could. There are channels, like ESPN, that if a distributor tried to move into a separate tier, the channel would laugh and say, "No". And should the distributor then drop the channel, they might as well shut down the company.

Since ESPN, CNN, and a few others won't move, the distributors have no choice. Those channels are still too important to distributors.

In fact, perhaps the only way it could happen would be a whole new distributor who could build a model entirely around not having those channels and plan the infrastructure accordingly. That might be the only way for a breakthrough to occur.

A cable company can make $50+ per house for high speed internet alone over the wires that they are currently making $50 per house for providing TV, and having to pay retransmit fees for the programming, reducing their margins. Of course for Netflicks and streaming options, you NEED premium high speed offerings at higher cost.